Entropic Crusader

Have you noticed how many people spout the line ‘trust the science’, or variations thereof, especially in the mainstream media? Have you actually stopped to think about that at all? About how little sense it makes? You can’t trust the science, because that goes against the very foundations of what science is. Science is not about trust, it’s about doubt!

The whole point of science is that you should always, always be questioning. Everything, always, all the time. You come up with a theory, or perhaps ask a question: why is this thing the way it is? Why did this thing that I expected to happen not actually happen? Is there a better way to handle x?

Then you set up an experiment with specific variables that can be replicated by anyone else who might want to check your work later, whether to prove or disprove it doesn’t matter. What’s important is that your research is replicable by others given the same conditions, materials, whatever.

At that point, you set out to disprove your hypothesis. Real science is never about gotchas, or ‘I told you sos’, or similar sophistry. The ultimate point of science is to disprove things until you no longer can, at which point you can be reasonably certain that your idea/theory/experiment holds water. And there is always room for new information to come along and upset things, even when you think you’ve worked something out (as just one example, the ‘dark matter’ theory has just been upset by new information regarding how gravity works).

And when your theory is eventually proven wrong? Or something people thought was correct is upset by some new technology that allows for greater sensitivity or similar? Well, then you have to start over, possibly even from square one, which should excite a real scientist. “Oh hell, my theory was wrong! I wonder why? Let’s find out!” That’s a cause for excitement and enthusiasm to my mind.

A world with no more mysteries would be a pretty boring place, huh?

So when someone says ‘trust the science’, or the other chestnut, ‘the science is settled’ (you’ll hear this a lot in climate propaganda), be extremely suspicious. Anyone who says something like that is lying at best, malicious at worst, and they do not have even the slightest little iota of honesty. What these phrases really mean is ‘this is what our masters want you to believe, stop questioning the narrative’.

This leads us neatly into the next topic, which is ‘experts’ (feel free to enclose that word in as many air quotes as you feel it needs; one set might not be sufficient to convey the level of disdain I have for the very idea of ‘experts’).

The phenomenon of ‘experts’ is really just another example of how our useless education system has utterly failed (or rather, been subverted; the word failed could indicate that it was accidental, which it was not). People used to learn basic logic and reasoning at school, and especially at universities. One of the primary logical fallacies any young person should be able to spot is the appeal to authority (AKA, experts):

‘This statement must be true because an expert says it is true.‘

Offshoots of this include the aforementioned ‘trust the science’ and ‘the science is settled’, both of which are appeals to authority. So what makes one an expert? Agreeing with other experts. Two people may be equally knowledgeable on a subject, but the expert is the one who backs the approved conclusions.

Better still if he has credentials conferred to him by other experts. The one who questions those conclusions or lacks some credential is a fringe lunatic regardless of his knowledge and experience. You know all those so-called ‘peer-reviewed’ studies, journals, and similar? You didn’t think that was to ensure accuracy, did you? Of course not, it’s to ensure that the orthodoxy is followed.

Another type of expert to be wary of is the person who is, legitimately, an expert in a certain field, but who then either thinks they’re an expert in related (or even unrelated!) fields, or who is assumed to be an expert in related fields. A great example of this is the astrophysicist Niel deGrass Tyson.

Tyson is probably an excellent astrophysicist (can’t really say for sure as I ignore him for the most part; he’s too focused on being a celebrity for me to take him seriously), but where people make a huge mistake is in thinking that because he’s got a wealth of knowledge on this particular scientific subject, that means he must automatically know everything there is to know about all science. So you’ll get people asking him questions on completely unrelated scientific subjects because they believe he has something useful to say about it.

At best he can give opinions—informed opinions, admittedly, based on his experience as a scientist—but outside of his specific area of expertise, why would you ever assume that he also has an in-depth understanding of microbiology, for example? But people do assume in this manner. It’s no different to any other appeal to authority.

Failure to understand basic logic gives rise to all sorts of idiocy. The advent of ‘fact checkers’ claiming to be the arbiters of truth is just one recent and glaring example. This lack of ability to use logic and reasoning also leads people to viciously attack anyone who dares use their own reason and logic to counter the BS being put out by fact checkers and others of their ilk.

How many times have you watched a Youtube video, under which they’ve placed a big blue ‘context’ box? Quite a few, I’d imagine? Youtube is the establishment, so whenever they put one of those context boxes under a video, it’s nothing more than an attempt to propagandise you into disbelieving what’s in the video and believing the experts, normally linking you to either a state organ (NHS, for example, on any video critical of the jabs), or Wikipedia, which at this point might as well be a state organ.

Meanwhile, over on Twitter (or X… just… no, Musk, I’m not calling it that, fuck off) we now have the excellent community notes, where anyone can jump in and provide extra context. This is great, as it allows for different views, but also for people to actively call out the bullshit of the so-called experts. I’m no Musk fan (quite the opposite, actually), and I dislike a lot of what he’s done with Twitter, but this one change by itself makes up for most of the other silly decisions. Let’s hope it lasts.

At the end of the day, experts are nothing more than government-sponsored propagandists, and should be treated as such. Experts gave the world the laughably backwards food pyramid, which has killed untold millions of people around the world. Experts got billions to believe that a mild cold was the next bubonic plague. Experts want you to think that Co2 (literal plant food!) is a pollutant, and that carbon (the building block of all life on the planet) needs to be reduced. Are you seeing a pattern yet?

The very best thing you can do when you see an article/video/whatever whose title begins ‘Experts say…’ is to close it down and move on with your life, you’re missing nothing of value. Beyond that, a tried and true method is to simply assume that the opposite of what the experts say is the actual truth. Unfortunately, most people are incapable of truly independent or critical thought, and simply believe whatever the idiot box tells them, bringing us neatly back to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Short of destroying every single TV on the planet, I don’t know how we solve this problem, but I’d suggest that defunding the BBC (and similar state broadcasters) and doing everything possible to destroy the big media conglomerates would be a good start. Fortunately, evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction, and some of these entities are in freefall collapse as we speak, so maybe there’s hope yet.